The new twist on an old tactic (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

TheHeretic -> The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 2:32:10 PM)

Just a brief rant, but comments are welcome:


So, unless this post drops one, I'm counting 5 threads with, "Bengazi" in the title, currently on the first page of P&R, with same thread-starter duplicates. All have been started by posters not generally considered to be conservative. Should the trend continue, recent policies here on Collarchat will see the whole subject lumped into a singular thread. Which, I strongly suspect, is what the spammers are seeking. (I also strongly suspect they are scared shitless - I may have to start following the story a bit more closely. [;)])

The standard playbook for libs in a scandal is to redefine the topic. It's how video of an NAACP audience cracking up at the prospect of a, "sticking it to whitey," story, became a slanderous attack by conservatives on the nice lady from Ag who entrapped them. It's how the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob, instead of the President of the United States lying under oath. If they can get it all shoved into a single place, shrieking forth with the defensive talking points of the day gets a lot easier.

I'd hope that we will see the perpetrators of such a deliberate forum sabotage bear the burden of it, rather than the conversation.




dcnovice -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 2:40:12 PM)

I've been a bit distracted lately, so I haven't followed P&R micropolitics all that carefully.

I remember, gratefully, all the Martin/Zimmerman threads' being consolidated. Have there been other instances as well?



Owner59 -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 2:46:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Just a brief rant, but comments are welcome:


So, unless this post drops one, I'm counting 5 threads with, "Bengazi" in the title, currently on the first page of P&R, with same thread-starter duplicates. All have been started by posters not generally considered to be conservative. Should the trend continue, recent policies here on Collarchat will see the whole subject lumped into a singular thread. Which, I strongly suspect, is what the spammers are seeking. (I also strongly suspect they are scared shitless - I may have to start following the story a bit more closely. [;)])

The standard playbook for libs in a scandal is to redefine the topic. It's how video of an NAACP audience cracking up at the prospect of a, "sticking it to whitey," story, became a slanderous attack by conservatives on the nice lady from Ag who entrapped them. It's how the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob, instead of the President of the United States lying under oath. If they can get it all shoved into a single place, shrieking forth with the defensive talking points of the day gets a lot easier.

I'd hope that we will see the perpetrators of such a deliberate forum sabotage bear the burden of it, rather than the conversation.





[:D]


Actually,many of the OPs only reference Benghazi and are mostly about, your party.......






thompsonx -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 2:51:52 PM)

quote:

It's how the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob, instead of the President of the United States lying under oath.


Should we impeach all presidents who lie?
or
Should we impeach all presidents who lie under oath?
Should we require the president to be under oath when he addresses congress?



Lucylastic -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 2:54:12 PM)

One of them spells Benghazi consistently correct[:)]



TheHeretic -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 2:55:10 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I remember, gratefully, all the Martin/Zimmerman threads' being consolidated. Have there been other instances as well?



Gun control since then, DC, but we'll accept your note from the Dr., and no make-up quizzes.



TheHeretic -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 3:07:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

One of them spells Benghazi consistently correct[:)]



Is that what they are settling on as the consensus spelling in the media? Gee. I guess I need to buy an updated atlas, huh? As with Kuh-Daffy, it seems they always need to tinker with spellings from that part of the world. Any color you like, I suppose.



Owner59 -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 3:14:28 PM)

We know....debating is your strong point...[:D]



BamaD -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 5:12:20 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

It's how the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob, instead of the President of the United States lying under oath.


Should we impeach all presidents who lie?
or
Should we impeach all presidents who lie under oath?
Should we require the president to be under oath when he addresses congress?

Lying is not a felony, Lying under oath is, do you see the difference.



Politesub53 -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 5:17:26 PM)

Yeah right. Anything anti republican is an attempt to shut down the debate.

Good luck with that.



thompsonx -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 5:26:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

It's how the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob, instead of the President of the United States lying under oath.


Should we impeach all presidents who lie?
or
Should we impeach all presidents who lie under oath?
Should we require the president to be under oath when he addresses congress?

Lying is not a felony, Lying under oath is, do you see the difference.

What has this moronic drivel have to do with what I posted?



Edwynn -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 9:21:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

The standard playbook for libs in a scandal is to redefine the topic.


That's actually an matter of one party not properly understanding an issue sufficiently, then accusing another party that explains it as actually understanding the the situation as "redefining the topic."


quote:

It's how the Clinton impeachment was all about a blowjob, instead of the President of the United States lying under oath.


It was always about the blowjob. That's most particularly why congress was so obsessed with the matter. It was entirely inappropriate for congress to require official (with taking of oath) testimony from a president about personal indiscretion. Matters of national security? Yes. Remunerated favoritism? Yes. A blowjob?

Please.

There have been much more worthy causes for putting a number of presidents under oath before congress, which they continually have demonstrated dereliction of duty in not doing.

But for whatever reason, they just had to have that blowjob thing under oath.

It most definitely, indisputably, was all about the blowjob for congress.



TheHeretic -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 9:22:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Politesub53

Yeah right. Anything anti republican is an attempt to shut down the debate.

Good luck with that.



No, Polite, but thanks for providing an example of a taking a topic, and twisting it into something else entirely. [8|]

The characterization that the Democrat spinmeisters and spokesholes are attempting to put on this is one of Republicans going after Obama because a diplomatic post was attacked, with a staged comeback of all the other attacks Republicans didn't raise a stink over, and the usual hypocrisy countercharge. It isn't.

The White House and/or State Department, as detailed by an ABC report, sought to dramatically alter the facts of the matter that were then presented to the American public. Then they lied about having done that. This isn't a case of weighing conflicting reports, and going with the one that suited a desired outcome, as we saw with Bush and the WMD, but of purely fabricating, through a dozen rewrites, the information that was given to the American people.

Now the part of it I find most offensive, as I prioritize the values, is that a man was jailed for exercising his free speech, with both the President and the Secretary of State, bragging about about him being locked up. That is very much a minority gripe in the affair, but it is my big one, all the same. He's still in jail. California can't get the felons out of the prisons fast enough these days, but they found space to keep him.

Bengatezi will go away, as long as the administration doesn't handle it like a bunch of Nixonian retards.



TheHeretic -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 9:29:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

That's actually an matter of one party not properly understanding an issue sufficiently, then accusing another party that explains it as actually understanding the the situation as "redefining the topic."





Sure thing, Edwynn. We just need to accept that the President's excuse for lying to us was completely valid, purely because he is "The One." Gotcha.

[8|]



TheHeretic -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 9:34:06 PM)

Just a thought on why the Dems are so desperate on this one. If there is suffient dirt to bring down a need for the hard finger of blame, it could esily split the Obamabot and Clintonite wings of the party. We can't have that, now can we? [:D]



Edwynn -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/12/2013 9:35:50 PM)

PS

My top four recent candidates for putting under congressional oath would be Cheney, Bush II, Henry Paulson, and Tim Geithner.

Just think, if they'd all been caught indulging in inappropriate blowjobs, then put under congressional oath, how much well informed the country would be about ...

their blowjobs.

And nothing whatsoever about the actual damage they've caused to the country and the world.

Congress knows best about what to ask and what not to ask. And what to ask under oath and what staged 'questions' to assiduously avoid being under oath.





Edwynn -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/13/2013 12:01:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn

That's actually an matter of one party not properly understanding an issue sufficiently, then accusing another party that explains it as actually understanding the the situation as "redefining the topic."





Sure thing, Edwynn. We just need to accept that the President's excuse for lying to us was completely valid, purely because he is "The One." Gotcha.

[8|]



You're saying that congress' invocation of requiring under-oath testimony for a completely inconsequential matter and dragging a president into congress under oath for for simple prurient curiosity on their part was completely valid. Gotcha.




thompsonx -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/13/2013 5:45:01 AM)

quote:

The characterization that the Democrat spinmeisters and spokesholes


This phrase begs the question...are there also spokesholes and spinmiesters in the so called "other" party?



DaddySatyr -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/13/2013 6:47:30 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

... Democrat spinmeisters and spokesholes ...



Well, spoken, sir; especially when one spends a little bit of time observing these very boards (I'm stealing the highlighted word, by the way).

I was going to start this sentence with: "What surprises me is ..." but, unfortunately, I'm not surprised by the stupidity of the American people. I am, however, appalled by it. There's (apparently) a (growing) majority of people in this country that just accept the Pablum© that the news media forces down their throats until they can regurgitate it to friends, co-workers and others in an attempt to sound as intelligent as the talking heads that they worship.

It saddens me that Americans can continually defecate all over the very principles that founded this country and that their fathers and grandfathers fought so hard to preserve and protect. I know quite a few dems that hold the beliefs they do out of simple rebellion; their parents felt one way and in an effort to piss on those graves, these PPLs pick as opposite a viewpoint as is possible and defend it as ardently as their predecessors defended the values that made this country great.

I've used the word "American" a few times, here. I know I've said this before but it may have been a while so, I will repeat it ...

The Europeans amongst us tend to be supportive of the dems because the American dems are moving more and more toward socialism which is what most of Europe has become. Well, I don't give two mouse turds about how foreigners think a country in which they don't live, probably never will and likely have no desire to live is run. If it's that important to them, they can become citizens and vote. Until then, they can stop exporting the wonderful "new ideas" that have made the EU such a "success" (Please see Greece and Spain and quite a few others, on that side of the pond).

You'll notice, please that I don't comment on European doings because I have no first-hand knowledge of living under those conditions and wouldn't presume to know what might or might not work there; a burden that isn't shared by Europeans, in general.



Peace and comfort,



Michael



mnottertail -> RE: The new twist on an old tactic (5/13/2013 7:25:14 AM)

Yeah, I am not going to read this asswipe, the scandal is in the minds of the inept teabaggers.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875